State v. Schmitt, 1 CA-CR 16-0352

Background

July 2014 road‑rage incident: Schmitt (passenger) and his son (driver) cut off G.A.; while stopped at a light Schmitt allegedly pointed a handgun at G.A. and threatened to kill him. G.A. followed and called 911; police later stopped the Schmitt vehicle and recovered a matching gun.
First trial: G.A. testified for the State; jury hung and mistrial was declared.
Before the second trial the State moved to declare G.A. unavailable; a subpoena was served and the motion was rendered moot, but G.A. again failed to appear at the State’s case‑in‑chief and the court ultimately found him unavailable and allowed redacted first‑trial testimony to be read to the jury under Rule 804(a)(5).
The court permitted the defense to call certain witnesses to attack G.A.’s credibility under Rule 806; unexpectedly G.A. appeared and testified live for the defense and later as a rebuttal witness, but the court limited live testimony to matters not previously read to the jury.
Defense attempted to impeach G.A. with a purported hallway statement to Officer Benker; the court excluded extrinsic evidence on that collateral matter. Defense requested a self‑defense instruction, which the court denied after Schmitt expressly denied committing any defensive/assaultive act.
Jury convicted Schmitt of aggravated assault and disorderly conduct; Schmitt appealed raising confrontation/clause and evidentiary issues and challenging denial of self‑defense instruction.

Issues

Issue	Schmitt's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether limiting G.A.’s live testimony violated Confrontation Clause	Limitations prevented full cross‑examination and denied confrontation	Court reasonably limited repetitive/cumulative questioning; defendant had earlier full cross in first trial and transcript read	No violation; limits were proper to avoid cumulative evidence and preserve confrontation rights
Whether excluding impeachment by extrinsic evidence of collateral hallway statement violated confrontation/impeachment rights	Could show G.A. was angry at prosecution and thus untruthful; admissible to impeach	Hallway remark was collateral; extrinsic evidence barred by rule 608(b)/Lopez	Exclusion proper; collateral matter and/or not contradictory and not probative of untruthfulness
Whether allowing a juror question about G.A.’s current belief exceeded scope of permitted testimony	Juror question impermissibly sought testimony on matters already on record / beyond allowed scope	Question covered beliefs up to trial date and was permissible under Rule 18.6(e); court may permit reasonable juror questions	No abuse of discretion; question allowed as it encompassed post‑first‑trial timeframe
Whether Schmitt was entitled to a self‑defense jury instruction	Evidence of driving maneuvers and prosecution’s own introduction of justification remarks warranted instruction	Schmitt disavowed any defensive act; no evidence he acted in self‑defense; mere speculation insufficient	Denial proper; defendant denied assaultive conduct so no instruction required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; Confrontation Clause de novo)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (trial judges may impose reasonable limits on cross‑examination for repetitiveness)
State v. Dunlap, 125 Ariz. 104 (Confrontation Clause guarantees defendant right to confront witnesses)
State v. Lopez, 234 Ariz. 465 (extrinsic evidence to contradict a witness is barred where prior inconsistent statement concerns a collateral matter)
State v. Manuel, 229 Ariz. 1 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for answering juror questions)
State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for denial of self‑defense instruction; slightest evidence triggers instruction)
State v. Miller, 129 Ariz. 42 (a defendant who disclaims assaultive behavior is not entitled to self‑defense instruction)
State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571 (self‑defense instruction requires more than speculation; jury must have rational basis)
State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262 (denial of justification instruction appropriate where defendant denies defensive act)